DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim s 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “ periodically ” in claims 1 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ periodically ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 22 and 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “ narrow ” in claim 22 and 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ narrow ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claims 1 - 2, 7 , 12-17 are rejected under under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Searfoss (US 7320532) in view of Main (US 10,314,407) . Regarding claim 1, Searfoss teaches a sleep aid apparatus ( abstract “ A nightlight provides therapeutic effects ” ) comprising: A light source adapted to generate a light signal , projected from said sleep aid apparatus ( column 5, line 12 “t he nightlight includes a housing, a light source ” and column 5, line 20 “ The light source may include one or more lamps for producing a plurality of lamp modes ”) with a first luminosity wherein said first luminosity is periodically variable ( column 2, line 60 “ light is produced at a luminosity of between 5 lumens and 50 lumens. Furthermore, it is preferable that the light has an intensity which varies in a sine wave like pattern. ” ) ) And wherein said light signal has a wavelength selected from a range of 600 nm to 700 nm; and ( column 6, line 20: “t he user may select colors stretching across the visible light spectrum ” and figure 4 shows the wavelength range that can be selected, including 600 – 700 nm) , . ”) A sound source adapted to generate an audio signal (column 4, line 11 “ Additional audio functions may include compact disk (CD), tape, MP3 or prerecorded audio such as nature sounds or personalized messages. ” , However, Searfoss does not teach wherein within a predetermined frequency range said audio signal has a signal intensity which generally decreases as the frequency increases . Main teaches a sleep system with a sound program with a signal intensity that generally decreases as the frequency increases ( Column 9, line 27: Pink noise, which is sound with energy inversely proportional to the frequency, at 60 dB significantly decreases sleep latency and induces more deep sleep ). It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system in Tan to have the signal intensity taught in Main. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that brain waves may synchronize with the low frequencies in this sound, and so induced greater amounts of deep sleep when compared to quiet nights. See column 9, line 27 of Main. Regarding claim 2, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein within said predetermined frequency range, said signal intensity is inversely proportional to frequency. However, Main teaches a sleep system with a speaker that can play signal intensity that is inversely proportional to frequency. ( Column 9, line 27: Pink noise, which is sound with energy inversely proportional to the frequency, at 60 dB significantly decreases sleep latency and induces more deep sleep ). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep apparatus taught in Tan to produce an audio signal taught in Main (inversely proportional of the frequency). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that brain waves may synchronize with the low frequencies during pink noise , and so induced greater amounts of deep sleep when compared to quiet nights. See column 9, line 29 of Main. Regarding claim 7, Searfoss teaches wherein said sound source is adapted to generate said audio signal for a first predetermined time period . (column 6, line 41 “ the nightlight may include a clock in the form of a numerical or circular dial for displaying the time or scheduled alarm time. Additional audio functions may include addition of a compact disk (CD), tape, MP3 or prerecorded audio player. The prerecorded audio may produce relaxing sounds during the sleep readiness or sleep help modes such as nature sounds or personalized messages “ and column 3, line 30 “ preferably the processor includes a timer for automatically extinguishing the sleep help mode after a predetermined time period. . ”) Regarding claim 12, Searfoss teaches a sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a further light source adapted to selectively generate a further light signal, ( column 5, line 12 “t he nightlight includes a housing, a light source ” and column 5, line 20 “ The light source may include one or more lamps for producing a plurality of lamp modes ”) projected from said sleep aid apparatus ( column 5, line 12 “t he nightlight includes a housing, a light source ” and column 5, line 20 “ The light source may include one or more lamps for producing a plurality of lamp modes ” ) with a second luminosity ( column 2, line 60 “ light is produced at a luminosity of between 5 lumens and 50 lumens. Furthermore, it is preferable that the light has an intensity which varies in a sine wave like pattern. ” ) and wherein said further light signal has a wavelength selected from a range of 600nm to 700nm. ( column 6, line 20: “t he user may select colors stretching across the visible light spectrum ” and figure 4 shows the wavelength range that can be selected, including 600 – 700 nm) , ”) Regarding claim 13, Searfoss discloses the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 12, wherein said second luminosity is constant. ( column 3, line 8 “ For example, a preferred luminosity produced during the wake-up mode is between 1,000 lumens and 1,800 lumens. Even more preferably, the light produces approximately 1,600 lumens. ” ) Regarding claim 14, Searfoss discloses the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 12, further comprising a diffuser element configured to evenly diffuse the further light signal. ( column 5, line 18 “ the housing includes a screen 5 which diffuses the light over a broad surface area to provide a more pleasing and uniform illumination. ”) Regarding claims 15 and 16, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus of claim 1 and 12 but fails to teach wherein said first (of claim 15) and second (of claim 16) luminosity is selectively limited to a maximum of 200 Lux. However, Main teaches an intelligent sleep ecosystem that has a maximum luminosity of 200 lux. (Column 8, line 60: “ Dusk simulation: Bed senses the occupant is ready for sleep Decrease in motion Flatter posture Change light to 2700K and decrease from 200-0 lux over 30 minutes Dawn simulation: Bed senses the occupant is ready to wake up Within ˜45 minutes of wake time Sleeper in light sleep or REM Gradually increase from 0-200 lux of 6700K light ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Searfoss to have the maximum luminosity taught in Main. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize l ights which simulate the sun's cycle have been used to aid sleep: decreasing light in the evening and increasing light in the morning help regulate the body's circadian rhythm and establish a regular sleep pattern. See column 8, line 43 of Main. Regarding claim 17, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first luminosity is periodically variable at a predetermined rate. ( column 5, line 66 “ the sleep help mode produces a light of an undulating intensity, increasing and decreasing in a rhythmic pattern. Preferably, the undulation varies the luminosity of the light between 5 lumens and 25 lumens in a sine wave pattern of increasing and decreasing intensity. ” . ”) The examiner is interpreting “periodically variable” as able to change the luminosity at which the first light is flashing and “a predetermined rate” how quickly the first light will flash. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searfoss and Main and further in view of Gordon (US 2018/0344968) . Regarding claim 3 , Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein within said predetermined frequency range, said signal intensity is inversely proportional to frequency. However, Gordon teaches a sound generation system for inducing a relaxing or sleep state that can produce an audio signal wherein within said predetermined frequency range, said signal intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the frequency. (paragraph [0025] “ the audio output can include characteristics such as: brown noise 201 ”) The examiner would like to note that a signal intensity inversely proportional to square of the frequency is the definition of brown noise. Therefore, the prior art is producing a signal intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the frequency. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep apparatus taught in Searfoss to produce an audio signal taught in Gordon ( inversely proportional of the square of the frequency ) . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that the b enefits of brown noise 201 may include fostering relaxation and meditation, improving mental focus, enhancing reading comprehension, and improving quality of sleep. See paragraph [0027] of Gordon . Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searfoss in view of Cuervo (US 4785797) and Luxon , L. M. (1998). Toys and games: poorly recognised hearing hazards?: European case ascertainment will help to confirm the association. BMJ , 316 (7143), 1473. Herein referred to as Luxon . Regarding claim 4, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the volume of said audio signal is limited to at least one of 80 dBA time averaged emission or 110 dBC peak emission, at a distance of 500 mm. Cuervo teaches a method for sound treatment of infants citing volume safety levels. (Column 6, line 63 ” The overall level of the signal was adjusted to be about seventy five dBA. It was found that the maximum level (seventy four db ) was recorded in the span centered at five hundred Hz; slightly lower levels were recorded in the two hundred fifty Hz and one thousand Hz bands. Subjectively, the sound was noted to be moderately loud but not objectionable. There is no evidence to suggest that exposure to this noise for even up to eight hours would in any way damage hearing. It is well below the eighty five dBA level stipulated for an eight hour exposure by Occupational Safety and Health Administration Rules. ” And column 10, line 54 “ For those subjects receiving the sound condition, the seventy five DB sound was re-set by an audiologist using a sound meter when the sound generator was fixed to the infants crib. ” ) The examiner is noting that it is already in the prior art and safety rules to have audio signals less than 85 decibels. Additionally, as the sound levels were measured by a sound meter which in general practice would be measured from about 1 meter away, the dbA level could not exceed 80 decibels on average. However, Cuervo is silent on a sound level of 110 dBC peak emission . Luxon , a professor of audiological medicine, writes an editorial on hearing hazards of toys and games for children. (column 1, paragraph 3 “ At the child's ear sound levels of up to 122 dB(A) for toy mobile telephones and 150-160 dB(C) (which exceeds the noise at work peak action level) for toy weapons have been reported and may cause severe auditory damage. ”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Searfoss to follow the safety standards taught in Cuervo’s method and Luxon’s editorial . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that these sound levels are design incentives for devices intended to be used around children. By following the regulatory safety sound levels, this would create a device that is appealing for parents because it would be safe to use around young infants with developing hearing systems. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sea r foss and Main in view of Sedaros (US 6004259) . Regarding claim 5, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus of claim 1, but fails to teach said audio signal is attenuated for frequencies above a predetermined frequency (of claim 5) . Sedaros teaches a sound device for soothing a crying infant with the intent of easing the infant back to sleep where the said audio signal is attenuated for frequencies above a predetermined frequency. ( column 3, line 6-9: “The speaker output is connected to an 8 ohm speaker through a volume control 24 followed by 2 Op-amplifiers 26 and 27 with a low pas filter 25”s ) The examiner would like to note that a low-pass filter eliminates or attenuates for frequencies above a predetermined frequency . See also Sedaros column 2, line 54: “ A low pass filter 15 is to eliminate high frequency noise ” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Searfoss to use a low pass filter as taught in Sedaros . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is a known technique used in similar devices and that combining the sleep aid apparatus of Searfoss with the apparatus taught in Sedaros would have produced the predictable results of eliminating high frequency noise. See column 2, line 55 of Sedaros . Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searfoss , Main, and Sedaros and further in view of Rhee (US 6206821) . Regarding claim 6, Sea r foss and Sedaros fails to teach that the said audio signal is attenuated for frequencies above 1kHz . Rhee teaches a device that records and reproduces womb sounds for comfort that uses a low-pass filter that is attenuated for frequencies above 1khZ. ( Column 3, line 44: “ The first and second low pass filters 36 and 37 are operative to pass, with minimal attenuation, frequency components of the baseband signal up to a low pass filter cutoff frequency, for example, of 1,000 Hz ” And c olumn 7, line 12: “ The device of the present invention has mainly been designed for a pregnant woman, but is also effective to adult men, women, children, and psychopathic patients. ” ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Tan to use a low pass filter attenuated for frequencies above 1kHz as taught in Rhee . One of ordinary skill would have been able to recognize that having an audio signal above 1 khZ would remove undesired noises . See column 3, line 49 of Rhee. Since the claimed device is intended use for helping an infant sleep ensuring the noise is gentle and comforting would be necessary for the claimed device. Claim(s) 8-9, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searfoss , Main further in view of Tan (WO 2012011869 ) (as cited in the applicant’s IDS) . Regarding claim 8, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein said first predetermined period is 40 minutes. However, Tan teaches a sleep aid apparatus with an adjustable timer (paragraph [00104]: “ The sleep timer may be adjusted in intervals of 5 minutes up to a maximum of two hours. ”) The examiner is interpreting that based on the prior art there is an embodiment of this sleep aid apparatus with a first predetermined period that can be adjusted to 40 minutes. It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the sleep system in Searfoss to have the adjustable timer in Tan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is a known technique in the art and that modifying the system in Searfoss in view of Tan would have yielded the predictable results of an adjustable timer for 40 minutes. Regarding claim 9, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the audio signal is continuous. However, Tan teaches wherein the audio signal is continuous. (Paragraph [0021] : “ As such, each sound arrangement may be made up of a collection of continuous segments ”) It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the sleep system in Searfoss to have the continuous audio signal in Tan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is a known technique in the art and that modifying the system in Searfoss in view of Tan would have yielded the predictable results of having continuous segments to prevent sleep disruption. Regarding claims 18 and 19, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus according to claim 17 but fails to teach wherein said predetermined rate is within a range of 6 times per minute to 40 times per minute (of claim 18) and wherein said predetermined rate is within a range 8 times per minute to 20 times per minute (of claim 19) . Tan teaches wherein said predetermined rate is within a range of 6 times per minute to 40 times per minute (of claim 18) and wherein said predetermined rate is within a range 8 times per minute to 20 times per minute (of claim 19) . (paragraph [0021] “The first range of time intervals may be around 0.05s to around 5s”.) Changing the property of the light 1 time every 0.05s equates to 1200 times per minute and 1 time every 5s equates to 12 times per minute which falls within the claimed range. . It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the sleep system in Searfoss to have the luminosity changing at predetermined rates in Tan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is a known technique in the art and that modifying the system in Searfoss in view of Tan would have yielded the predictable results of having a customizable light pattern to aid with sleep. Claim s 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searfoss , Main in view of Liu (CN 108837522) . Regarding claim s 10 and 11 , Searfoss teaches the sleep apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the apparatus the apparatus further comprises and audio sensor for detecting an external audio signal (of claim 10) and wherein said audio signal is generated in response to the detected external audio signal (of claim 11). However, Liu teaches a smart calming toy for infants to help them sleep, with an audio sensor for detecting an external audio signal and then generating an audio signal in response to the detected external audio signal . ( pg. 2, line 73-73 “the crying sound sensing module senses the infant crying, and the intelligent chip controls the audio control module to randomly play various lullaby. The lighting control module switches a variety of soft lights to assist infants and toddlers to sleep.”, see also pg. 3, lines 143-145 and pg. 3, lines 160-163 ). I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Tan to generate an audio signal response to the detected external audio signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize in the evening, appeasing infants and young children will affect 27 the quality of sleep of young parents, which in turn affects other aspects of life . Infants require constant comfort throughout the night and caregivers may not be able to provide that while also maintaining their own sleep quality. See background section of Liu. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searfoss in view Main (US 10314407) further in view of Roberts (US 5079682 ). Regarding claim 21, Searfoss teaches the sleep aid apparatus of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein said first luminosity periodically varies between a maximum luminosity and minimum luminosity, and wherein said minimum luminosity is 5% of said maximum luminosity. Main teaches an intelligent sleep ecosystem able to vary the maximum and minimum luminosity over a period of time. ( Column 8, line 60: “Dusk simulation: Bed senses the occupant is ready for sleep Decrease in motion Flatter posture Change light to 2700K and decrease from 200-0 lux over 30 minutes Dawn simulation: Bed senses the occupant is ready to wake up Within ˜45 minutes of wake time Sleeper in light sleep or REM Gradually increase from 0-200 lux of 6700K light” ). The examiner is interpreting the ability to decrease or increase over the range of 0-200 lux within 45 minutes as said first luminosity periodically varies between a maximum luminosity and minimum luminosity . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Searfoss to be able to vary the max and min luminosity over a period of time taught in Main. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is a known technique in the art and that improving Tan’s system in view of Main would have the predictable results of being able to adjust the lighting in a sleeping environment. However, both Searfoss and Main fail to teach that the minimum luminosity is 5% of said maximum luminosity. Roberts teaches a sleep apparatus with a light source with a minimum luminosity is 5% of said maximum luminosity . (Column 2, line 53 “ the minimum intensity of the artificial light during the period of exposure is between about 0 lux and about 50 lux, and is more preferably between about 0.1 and about 10 lux ”) . The examiner is choosing to modify the sleep apparatus in claim 1 with a minimum luminosity of 10 and when the maximum luminosity is set to 200 (as taught in Main) then that would make the minimum luminosity 5% of the maximum luminosity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Tan to have the minimum luminosity of 10 lux. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to that this is a known technique in the art and that improving Tan’s system in view of Roberts would have the predictable results of being able to maintain a minimally lit environment to not disrupt sleep. Claim s 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searfoss and Main in view of Evans (US 2011 / 0310613 ) . Regarding claim 22, Tan teaches t he sleep aid apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the apparatus is configured to project the first light signal in a narrow beam. Evans teaches a light projector to be used when a person is sleeping that projects a light signal in the shape of a narrow beam. (paragraph [ 0020] “ The housing 16 has a broader end and a narrower end, and at the narrower end is a projector lens 18 for projecting a beam of light indicated by the broken line 19. ”) The examiner is interpreting that since the projector lens is a narrow opening, the beam projected from the narrow end would also be narrow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Tan to project a narrow beam as taught in Evans. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to that this is a known technique in the art and that improving Tan’s system in view of Evans would have the predictable results of being able to maintain a minimally lit environment to not disrupt sleep. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searfoss , Main in view of Evans (US 2011 / 0310613 ) further in view of Chien (US 2011/0085323) . Regarding claim 23, Searfoss teach es the sleep aid apparatus of claim 22, but fail to teach the wherein the narrow beam projects from the apparatus in a conical configuration . However, Evans teaches wherein the narrow beam projects from the apparatus in a conical configuration . (paragraph [0025] “ Hence the light beam 19 sweeps out a conical surface in space ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Searfoss to project a narrow beam as taught in Evans. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to that this is a known technique in the art and that improving Tan’s system in view of Evans would have the predictable results of being able to maintain a minimally lit environment to not disrupt sleep. However, both Searfoss and Evans fail to teach such that the diameter of the narrow beam is from 30cm to 60cm at a distance of 140cm from the apparatus. Chien teaches an LED projection night light that projects a beam 30cm (11.8 inches) to 60 cm (23.6 inches) at a distance of 140cm (4.5 feet), from the apparatus. (Figure 9, shows that the image size can be 12-24 inches projected at a distance of 6-12 feet to the ceiling. And paragraph [0028] “ It will be appreciated that alternative arrangements for the telescope-assembly will still fall within the scope of the current invention. These may utilize the alternative constructions illustrated in FIG. 9A. The optics lens, telescope length, lens diameter, and/or focus can all be well designed to get a desired image quality and size out of the LED projection night light. ”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sleep aid apparatus in Searfoss and Evans to have the dimensions taught in Chien to get a desired image quality and size out of a night light . Furthermore, o ne of ordinary skill would have been able to recognize that the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device . Please see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) and MPEP 2144.04. IV. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shlangen (US 8427311) teaches a lighting device and method for producing sequential lighting stimuli . Chen ( US 2020 / 0330788 ) teaches a method for providing multiple light signals to help with sleep. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ARIANA JOY LACAY DECASTRO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8316 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30 . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5596 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /A.L.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /JACQUELINE CHENG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791